P. G. Agarwal, J. — Heard Mr. GK Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant and Dr. Ashok Saraf, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. SK Agarwal appearing for the respondents-assessee. 2. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 19.6.2000 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in Income Tax Appeal No.227 Gauhati/1997 for the assessment year 1991-92. 3. The undisputed fact is that the assessee Kashiram Agarwalla & Sons transferred land belonging to the HUF to the firms by way of capital contribution. M/s Kashiram Ramgopal (Agencies) is a partnership firm. Although the land was given to the partnership firm, there was no legal transfer of land byway of any documentary conveyance, evidencing the transfer. The Assessing Officer held that the land in question was not legally transferred and it will be assessed in the hand of the HUF. The Tribunal disagreed with the view of the Assessing Officer and held as the land was given as capital contribution to the partnership firm, the income from such land is not assessable in the land of assessee. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the following substantial question of law arises in the present case : "(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) as well as the Tribunal did not err in law in coming to the conclusion that the income from house property amounting to Rs. 2,08,740.14 is not to be assessed in the hands of the Assessee and directing deletion of the same from the income of the assessee? 3. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the above question was answered by this Court in Income Tax Ref 1 of 1997 disposed of on 4.3.1998. Although this Court held that so long there is no documents of evidencing registration of the transfer in favour of the partnership firm by its real owner, in the eye of law, no right whatsoever has been transferred for the land in d question. The Court further observed as follows : "But we make it clear that as and when such incident comes to the notice of the authority that the rights in the landed property has been actually transferred and those rights are being enjoyed by any person who is liable to pay taxes it is open to the authority to take appropriate action." 4. Dr. Dr. Saraf on the other hand submits that the dispute raised by the appellants e stands answered by the Apex Court in case of CIT vs. Poddar Cement Pvt Ltd reported in 226 ITR 625. The Apex Court after considering catena of judgments of various High Courts, held that requirement of registration of sale deed under section 22 of the IT Act, 1961 is not warranted. The Apex Court further held as follows : "Hence, though under the common law 'owner' means a person who has got valid title legally conveyed to him after complying with the requirements of law such as the Transfer of Property Act, the Registration Act, etc, in the context of section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, having regard to the ground realities and further having regard to the object of the Income Tax Act, namely, to tax the income 'owner' is a person who is entitled to receive income from the property in his own right. The requirement of registration of the sale deed in the context of section 22 is not warranted." In the IT Ref No. 1 of 1997, the Reference was answered in favour of the assessee but we find that question was not replied in categorical term. However, in view of the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Poddar Cement Pvt. Ltd & others (supra) where it is held that registration of documents under the Registration Act is not a must in the context of section 22 of the Income Tax Act, we hold that non registration of transfer documents is immaterial for the purpose of invoking the provision of section 22 of the IT Act.